I spoke briefly with some friends and acquaintances about the 2008 election...

[mike_c]

...at a party last night. Some of the folks in the discussion were in their mid-twenties, and some were in their 40's and 50's (me). All were nominally democrats, and the group at the party was overwhelmingly VERY liberal and very well educated.

On the question "Who do you support in the 2008 campaign?" the younger folks expressed general disdain for Clinton, although they were not able to articulate specific reasons for their feelings beyond broad statements like "I just don't think she's trustworthy."

There was stronger support for Obama, although it seemed to have more to do with charisma than with issues.

Speculation about Gore was mixed, with most folks still concentrating on their disappointment with the campaign he ran in 2000. There was not strong support for Gore entering the 2008 race, largely due to disillusionment about 2000. There was little awareness of anything he's said since, except of course An Inconvenient Truth, but no one factored that into the political discussion at all. Some expressed dismay that Clinton seemed to be engaging in "the same sort of campaign," which I interpreted as meaning lackluster.

There were several troubling aspects to the conversation. A couple of time, folks said things like "Of the three (dem) candidates, so-and-so blah blah blah." There seemed a complete unawareness that there are more candidates than the three media darlings in the dem primary. I gathered that none of the younger folks had watched any of the debates.

More distressing still, there was a measure of consensus among the younger folks that they'd be happy if Giuliani won the republican nomination and even the general election because "he's done some pretty great things." In fact, the discussion started because one of my colleagues asked a group of the younger generation what their general sense was about the 2008 election-- jaded? hopeful?-- and they replied that they were quite hopeful because it seemed likely that Giuliani would get the republican nomination and so even another republican administration would likely be OK.

My take on all of this is that people were having precisely the sort of discussion that the corporate media-- in particular television media-- wants them to have. Their debate was entirely shaped by the perspectives they absorbed while cable news programming was running in the background of their lives. I've long been a proponent of turning off televisions permanently, and the more I listen to folks whose perspectives seem molded by corporate media agendas, them more strongly I feel about that.

on edit: There was absolutely no discussion of the war against Iraq as a factor in the 2008 elections. It was as if the war was not even occuring.

[blm]

1. News media is doing exactly what they've been BOUGHT to do.

.

[november3rd]

7. The children of the money-media

The children of the money-media don't realize that their minds are being controlled by those who provide the full range of their information and concepts.

What difference does it make which of the "three" candidates the voters select if all three of the leading candidates are preselected by the media companies?

Duhhhhhhhhhhh.

It's time to completely restructure the system. We need public access media in both tv and radio on a par with the cable and commercial network franchises the big companies have swindled out of the public.

We need total net neutrality and greatly increased public internet participation.

We need to organize local governments with everybody participating--especially the middle and working classes.

We need expanded parental participation opportunities in public education of our children.

All we ever worry about is war and money because that's what our media-appointed leaders want us to focus on. Otherwise, their power and their overlords' control of the economy will be threatened.

[Spike89]

19. Too soon for panic

No doubt the corporate media does way too much of the initial framing of the candidates/issues. But we shouldn't forget that most people don't follow politics year-round, especially in a non-election year. We are still months away from even the first primary campaigns! Hopefully, issues will be picked up and start percolating among the general population as we get closer to really have decisions to make. With any luck, haircuts, mansions, and the like will be old hat by then and we can hear about the economy, environment, health care, and other real issues.
I agree that the public "should" be more informed, but seriously, public access TV is never, ever, ever going to be on a par with entertainment networks...it isn't why most Americans bought their big screens for. Organizing local governments with everyone participating is a great concept, but I live in a city famous (around here at least) for contentious and never-ending public involvement in the process, yet even so, the percentage of residents that have ever been to a city council meeting is statistically insignificant. Schools here (and elsewhere I'd wager) routinely beg for increased parental involvement.
The reality is that most people work, come home, hopefully spend time with their kids, get some sleep and do it again. Politics and active engagement in the process is, and probably always will be the interest of a small percentage. Only a few times a century is a country's population roused to be politically active--and that is almost always a catastrophe/huge war and the results of more people getting involved aren't nearly as progressive as I'd like to see.

[babylonsister]

2. I think you did just describe the portion of the country that don't

keep themselves informed. I'd think, if they did, they wouldn't have such a generic outlook, and I'd think Iraq would be a major topic of discussion. The majority of people I know are similar; if they only knew how much was riding on this, but they prefer to live in their own little world where nothing can hurt them and ignorance is obviously bliss. x(

[Hissyspit]

3. Who are these people??

Gore gave MAJOR speeches against the war and about the violations against the Constitution.

Hillary voted for IWR and all they could come up with was a general feeling of distrust?

Giuliani has done WHAT great things????

Another Republican? HELLO...??? SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS???

Jesus, people are fucking dumb.

[hootinholler]

15. Ignorant, not dumb.

Ignorance is correctable, stoopud is for life.

-Hoot

[Hissyspit]

22. Yeah, you're right.

Am just in a bad mood.

-'Spit

[hootinholler]

23. Well then...

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

Need more?

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

Say when...

-Hoot

[Hissyspit]

24. Thanks!

Hugs, some Entenmann's donuts, and Home Run Inn frozen Chicago-style pizza, and day is now much better!

[libodem]

4. Mike

I think you had a good mix of regular folks to listen to and 'test the waters'. Wouldn't that be Gawd-awful if our younger Democrats' had the idea that Giuliani, is Republican-lite, enough to qualify him for cross-over votes. I have the impression of him being a jerk-wad as a mayor. Petty and mean. Now, if we had a 'Rovian' character on our side, we would be in mondo-media, production, cataloging his faults, lifestyle, world-view, and what-ever. He could be discredited in 30 second , inflammatory spots, made to hit, conservative Republican and Democrats. That guy is a flip-flopper. He can't be trusted to run the country, just because it was his city which was hit on 9/11. I like to know how far the GOP, king-maker-machine, is up his ass. Keep, up the good, work, Mike. I think your sampling of a Democratic, microcosm, is important. You, know, the way TheShadow, drives his cab around and talks, to soldiers. I listen in the grocery store line as we are going through. Sometimes the conversations are very anti-war and anti-Bush, for a very Red State. Thanks for your post. I think real life situations are very informative and reflect what is happening in the Country. Atta-boy.

[mike_c]

11. thanks-- the REAL message I came away with...

...is the frightening degree to which the national media is blunting awareness of the real issues facing America and the world. These were well educated folks, college grads, grad students, faculty, community members. The younger folk in particular seemed barely engaged by the American decline of the past six years.

I blame the media for that. I mean, some folks will always keep their heads in the sand regardless, but most of these people were not the sort to do that. They were simply poorly informed.

[asjr]

14. Agreed/ I have blamed the media for

years. They are shaping the vision of the younger, uninformed segment of the population. I can remember (though just barely) when I was young and a know-it-all without knowing anything at all. The media will tell them who to vote for. They are so powerful if they decided to do it they could tell everyone what a corrupt government we have. They could have a million editorials a day telling people what is and has gone wrong. So, quite frankly, I feel the media have committed treason.

[KoKo]

5. Maybe they will be so turned off by 2008 with what the media tells them they

won't even bother to vote. And that's what the media really wants. If they think Giuliani has done some great things...I hope they stay home. :eyes:

[CK_John]

6. At a recent end of college BBQ with faculty and retirees most gave Romney the nod.

He was considered very good looking (code speak for white/male). Not married to dogma (code speak for he will lie and its ok, they all do). And the problem is all the fault of Carter for not bombing Iran back in 79.

And these were all so called liberals. We have a long, long way to go.

[november3rd]

8. Let me guess...

This was in Austin, TX?

[CK_John]

10. No. upstate NY. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. This whole discussion is terrifying.

Are we all (as a nation) that clueless as to think Giuliani is a viable candidate? :scared:

[endarkenment]

12. The campaign will focus on critical issues like edwards haircut!

A national debate on catastrophic climate change and public policy? I don't think so, not right here in the land of the stupid, the home of the hairbrained! Oh no, not in my lifetime.

[T Wolf]

13. The only way the comotose public will become involved is if the

casualty rate goes way up AND there is a draft.

As long as there is so little impact on most Americans, it will be something that happens to other people. And of no concern to most lives.

[Firespirit]

16. Funny...

I also don't think Clinton is trustworthy, and my problem with her campaign is that she's stooping to the level of Republicans with her smear attacks on Democrats and sucking up to Bush.

I distinctly remember when DU was adamantly against the idea of a Gore candidacy in 2004, before he said he wasn't running. DU repeated the meme that his campaign was boring, attacked Gore himself for being "not a real liberal," often blamed him for "letting FL be close enough to be stolen," or attacked him for having "bad lawyers" during the recount court cases. When his defenders brought up the Nader factor, or the Supreme Court, or Katherine Harris, it was still somehow all Gore's fault. Only after he took himself out of the race did he get any respect on this site. I've found it deeply amusing and ironic that Gore has become a DU darling since 2005. I supported him in 2002, before he said he wasn't running, as did a high percentage of other people. The Johnny-come-latelys of this site are a source of great amusement (or bitterness) to those of us who "got" him years ago.

And let's not even get into the attacks on Kerry on this site for 2004 -- curiously enough, the same sort of attacks that were made against Gore: "boring campaign," "not liberal enough," "didn't fight in court." And -- the HEIGHT of irony -- "he doesn't know how to handle the media." I thought that the corporate media were working against us and could not be counted on to be fair to Democrats? Isn't that the very reason why our candidates refused to debate on FOX, because they're not fair and balanced? According to the conventional wisdom about Kerry, it would be that "they don't know how to handle FOX."

Those two, Gore and Kerry, are the exact sort of candidate that you supposedly would love to have -- well-informed, liberal, on the correct side of issues, leaders on the war and climate change. Yet Gore was slammed nonstop in 2002 on the web and Kerry was slammed virtually nonstop last year. I'm not sure of the OP's record on this sort of "commentary," but DU in general does not appreciate and recognize the people who DO FIT the mold of the leaders they claim to want.

If there is dissatisfaction with the current Democratic frontrunners -- if they're seen as lightweight and inexperienced -- DU can blame ITSELF for helping to drive out the political figures who would not be lightweight or inexperienced.

All this bitching about the current field doesn't get a lot of sympathy from me.

[mike_c]

17. I think you missed my point....

The discussion I'm recounting was not a debate of the sort that occurs on DU-- most of the participants seemed too uninformed to have any real debate, and their perceptions appeared to be based upon media driven distractions instead of awareness of the issues and how the candidates addressed them. I'm less concerned about the specifics they expressed than I am about the overall vapidity of the discussion.

I think a good argument could be made for all of those expressions-- "Clinton is untrustworthy, Gore was a pale shadow"-- and we hear those matters debated by informed persons on DU all the time. We might or might not agree with them, but the uninformed tend not to stay that way very long around here-- or they simply tend not to stay.

But the discussion I'm recounting MIRRORED the perspectives of the corporate media to a frightening degree. I NEVER watch television-- don't own one-- so I'm always shocked by the degree of thought control the corporate media wields. The folks I'm telling about are intelligent, well educated, and for the most part, critical thinkers-- but they've bought into the corporate media world view and their perspectives on events in America and the world are distressingly distorted.

[Firespirit]

18. So has the blogosphere.

The blogosphere does have the awareness that the corporate media are no good, that they exercise insidious thought control over many Americans, and that they have an anti-progressive agenda. That's the difference between the group you met and the online community. But the media have firm control over how the Internet community perceives and portrays politicians, too. There's a problem with the field being narrowed down to three media-anointed front-runners? It's reinforced by the comments of people on the Internet who say that so-and-so is a "second tier" candidate or "cannot win." A politician falls under attack by the corporate/right-wing media smear machine or Beltway Kool Kidz, and members of the party pile on out of fear? "That person can't handle the media well -- ditch them." Such talk only allows them to continue to get away with what they do. The blogs are complicit in the media mind control that your group of acquaintances demonstrated.

[KoKo]

20. I got your point...and I see the same thing around where I live ...remember

45% of Americans believe that Saddam had WMD and was a thread to the US. That's our media. Those of us who watch it know what they do. Without the internet we wouldn't know otherwise. But, then those of us on the liberal internets...sought out information because we were curious enough about what was going on to want to know more. Most folks out there aren't and they still believe that what they hear on TV or Radio Talk shows from the Right....is the truth. When you've had a TV on somewhere since birth it's easy to believe the "friendly faces" who tell you what they want your to know.

It's sad...but it's what it is. That's why I said I hoped the folks you talked to wouldn't bother to vote. There aren't well informed enough to make a rational decision if they think Giuliani has done "great things." :-(

[Cleita]

21. I'm surprised how many people even among Democrats

support Giuliani. It goes to show just how compromised the information we are getting from the media is. I don't know how we are going to educate the masses about this and the candidates in an unbiased way for both parties.